54 THE NAUTILUS. 



overlooked by the compilers of the Zool, Record; it is as well to note 

 that the part of the Jour, de Conch, containing this name was not 

 received at the British Museum until the 10th of May, 1893, as 

 noted in the Jour. Malac., Vol. 3, p. 9, 1894. As type of this genus 

 Dall and Bartsch write " Aciculina gracilis Cossmann." Should it 

 not be " Aciculina gracilis Deshayes " ? 



OSCII.LA. 



On p. 17 Dall and Bartsch include this in the synonymy of Cin- 

 gulina; their reference reads " Oscilla A. Adams, Idem, 1860, p. 

 418; type, Oscilla lirata A. Adams;" the Idem stands for Ann. 

 Mag. Nat. Hist., 3d Ser., Vol. 6. But at that place Oscilla does not 

 occur. 



Oscilla is defined in the Proc. Zool. Soc., 1867, p. 310, where five 

 species are included; the first species is lirata A. Adams, but the 

 third is cingulata A. Ad., which when it was introduced as Mon- 

 optygma cingulata in the Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. Ser., Ill, Vol. VII, 

 p. 296, 1861, was followed by this note. "This species is by no 

 means typical, and should form a subgenus under the name of 

 Oscilla." Consequently cingulata A. Ad. must be regarded as the 

 type of Oscilla, and the name date from this introduction. There 

 is a group of Pyramidellid mollusks which agree with cingulata and 

 the subgeneric definition "plica parietali, valida, transversa, medi- 

 ana," and though superficially resembling Cingulina are shorter, 

 broader shells, and are recognizable as Odostomias rather than Tur- 

 bonillas. As I can see no group to which they are otherwise refer- 

 able, I advise the retention of Oscilla for these forms: they compose 

 a group quite as natural as any other Pyramidellid group. 



Since this note was written I have seen a paper by Hedley (P. L. 

 S. N. S. W., Vol. XXXIV, 1909), wherein are described Odostomia 

 gumia, p. 446, pi. XLI, fig. 67, Odostomia migma. p. 447, pi. XLI, 

 fig. 70, and Odostomia laguearia, p. 447, pi. XLIII, fig. 82. These 

 beautiful figures indicate shells, which from their form I should class 

 as Oscilla. They do not look like Turbonilla. 



AGATHA. 



Dall and Bartsch at the foot of p. 10 write " The status of Agatha 

 virgo A. Adams, 1860 (Menestho, 1861, Myonia, 1861, Amathis, 

 1861), is not known to us. From the meager description we are 

 inclined to believe that it is allied to Actoeopyramis Fischer." 



But in the Proc. U. S. Nat, Mus., Vol. 30, 1906, p. 335, pi. 



